Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Multiple sclerosis

Switching sides—fingolimod versus injectable MS therapies

A new study shows that in patients with multiple sclerosis who exhibit active disease despite disease-modifying therapy, a switch to fingolimod is more effective than continuation of IFN-β or glatiramer acetate for preventing relapses and worsening of disability. These data support the utility of treatment escalation to improve disease control.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. He, A. et al. Comparison of switch to fingolimod or interferon beta/glatiramer acetate in active multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol.

  2. Butzkueven, H. et al. MSBase: an international, online registry and platform for collaborative outcomes research in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 12, 769–774 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergvall, N. et al. Relapse rates in patients with multiple sclerosis switching from interferon to fingolimod or glatiramer acetate: a US claims database study. PLoS ONE 9, e88472 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, J. A. et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 402–415 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, J. A. et al. Fingolimod versus intramuscular interferon in patient subgroups from TRANSFORMS. J. Neurol. 260, 2023–2032 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Khatri, B. et al. Comparison of fingolimod with interferon beta-1a in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised extension of the TRANSFORMS study. Lancet Neurol. 10, 520–529 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Anglemyer, A., Horvath, H. T. & Bero, L. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000034.

  8. Austin, P. C. & Laupacis, A. A tutorial on methods to estimating clinically and policy-meaningful measures of treatment effects in prospective observational studies: a review. Int. J. Biostat. 7, 6 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lublin, F. D. et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology 83, 278–286 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rotstein, D. L., Healy, B. C., Malik, M. T., Chitnis, T. & Weiner, H. L. Evaluation of no evidence of disease activity in a 7-year longitudinal multiple sclerosis cohort. JAMA Neurol. 72, 152–158 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


I.T.R. is supported by National Multiple Sclerosis Society Sylvia Lawry Physician Fellowship Award FP 17106-A-1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey A. Cohen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.A.C. reports personal compensation for consulting from Genentech. I.T.R. declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rossman, I., Cohen, J. Switching sides—fingolimod versus injectable MS therapies. Nat Rev Neurol 11, 316–317 (2015).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing